Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales>
References: <3c3b1c5e-cac2-42df-9d67-553a849789d3@googlegroups.com>
	<20140927192952.GS28734@gonzales>
	<bf1a257f-4b62-4d03-ad77-5bbfb1b91870@googlegroups.com>
	<20140927195841.GT28734@gonzales>
	<5349359c-f884-4976-a3e1-b0610eabeff6@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2c5fi5d+1Rc=1eXJEG_1a8QMeGe6Uy5psMYAWqkTO3ciQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140928013358.GB28734@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2ds0RxZnHoUSodwty5hjWk+6hpKPj_Y8NoVy+paOc44sg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140928152915.GB7320@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2eST7Fj3qQa2DKrmfPP8pYQPToCQL7x7v8xWUqAn5FARQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 13:07:02 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2fS_pTD3snnSeQ4meDbrBhS_v8RCJvPvbEuLjXDhx-Drw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113458c44c12b305049b0a93
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--001a113458c44c12b305049b0a93
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

> * Sunday, 2014-09-28 at 22:00 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gma=
il.com
> >:

 I take it then that the parser doesn't touch
> > li-expressions, or at least some of them?
>
> It handles matching operands with operators and so on, but quickly
> arrives at a fixed point.
>

Does it unwrap "li mo'e lo broda" in any way?


> > > Hmm. I've been adopting {lo broda} =3D=3D {zo'e noi broda} as absolut=
e
> > > dogma, so it's really making a side-claim that the referent(s)
> broda(s).
> > > You think a more accurate dogma would be
> > > {lo broda} =3D=3D {zo'e noi ca'e broda}?
> >
> > No, I was thinking of "ca'e" as defining the new auxiliary variables
> > introduced by the parsing.
>
> I wouldn't say it's a definition exactly. That it brodas need not be
> enough to pick the referent out uniquely, so I don't see that we can
> take it as a definition.
>

I think it should be enough "in context".

> But I do think that noi-clauses in general, and
> > the noi-clause used in the espansion of "lo" in particular, have an
> > illocutionary force different from assertions. I'm now thinking "zo'e n=
oi
> > sa'a broda" could be it.
>
> Hmm. Could you spell out a bit more what this means? I'd interpret that
> as "zo'e brodas, but this isn't the main point of my text", just making
> explicit what's already implicit in relegating the assertion to
> a noi-clause. I would take that kind of subtlety to be extralogical.
>

Compare "ta" with "lo va dacti", which I take to be roughly equivalent.
When a speaker uses "ta", are they making any claims just by saying "ta"? I
don't think they are, they are just using a referring expression. When
explaining what the speaker means when they say "ta broda", from a
metalinguistic point of view, one can make some claims about the speech act
that the speaker themself is not making, such as: "there is some object
close to the listener such that the speaker is pointing at it, and the
speaker is claiming of that object that it brodas", but the only claim made
by the speaker is "it brodas", not "I'm pointing at it and it is close to
you". Similarly, when the speaker says "lo broda cu brode", the speaker is
only claiming that it brodes, and it is using the description "lo broda" in
order for the listener to know what "it" refers to, not to make any claims
about it. Or would you also expand "ti broda" as "It is close to you and
I'm pointing at it. It brodas."?

I would say that whatever claim there is in "lo broda" has the same kind of
illocutionary force that a claim hidden in "ta", "mi", "do", "ko'a", etc.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--001a113458c44c12b305049b0a93
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Martin Bays <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:mbays@sdf.org" target=3D"_blank">mbays@sdf.org</a>&gt;</span> wr=
ote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">* Sunday, 2014-09-28 at 22:00 -0300 =
- Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jjllambias@gmail.com">jjllambia=
s@gmail.com</a>&gt;:=C2=A0</blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span=
 class=3D"">=C2=A0I take it then that the parser doesn&#39;t touch<br>
&gt; li-expressions, or at least some of them?<br>
<br>
</span>It handles matching operands with operators and so on, but quickly<b=
r>
arrives at a fixed point.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Does it unwra=
p &quot;li mo&#39;e lo broda&quot; in any way?=C2=A0</div><div>=C2=A0</div>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">
&gt; &gt; Hmm. I&#39;ve been adopting {lo broda} =3D=3D {zo&#39;e noi broda=
} as absolute<br>
&gt; &gt; dogma, so it&#39;s really making a side-claim that the referent(s=
) broda(s).<br>
&gt; &gt; You think a more accurate dogma would be<br>
&gt; &gt; {lo broda} =3D=3D {zo&#39;e noi ca&#39;e broda}?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; No, I was thinking of &quot;ca&#39;e&quot; as defining the new auxilia=
ry variables<br>
&gt; introduced by the parsing.<br>
<br>
</span>I wouldn&#39;t say it&#39;s a definition exactly. That it brodas nee=
d not be<br>
enough to pick the referent out uniquely, so I don&#39;t see that we can<br=
>
take it as a definition.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think it sho=
uld be enough &quot;in context&quot;.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote=
 class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">
&gt; But I do think that noi-clauses in general, and<br>
&gt; the noi-clause used in the espansion of &quot;lo&quot; in particular, =
have an<br>
&gt; illocutionary force different from assertions. I&#39;m now thinking &q=
uot;zo&#39;e noi<br>
&gt; sa&#39;a broda&quot; could be it.<br>
<br>
</span>Hmm. Could you spell out a bit more what this means? I&#39;d interpr=
et that<br>
as &quot;zo&#39;e brodas, but this isn&#39;t the main point of my text&quot=
;, just making<br>
explicit what&#39;s already implicit in relegating the assertion to<br>
a noi-clause. I would take that kind of subtlety to be extralogical.<br></b=
lockquote><div><br></div><div>Compare &quot;ta&quot; with &quot;lo va dacti=
&quot;, which I take to be roughly equivalent. When a speaker uses &quot;ta=
&quot;, are they making any claims just by saying &quot;ta&quot;? I don&#39=
;t think they are, they are just using a referring expression. When explain=
ing what the speaker means when they say &quot;ta broda&quot;, from a metal=
inguistic point of view, one can make some claims about the speech act that=
 the speaker themself is not making, such as: &quot;there is some object cl=
ose to the listener such that the speaker is pointing at it, and the speake=
r is claiming of that object that it brodas&quot;, but the only claim made =
by the speaker is &quot;it brodas&quot;, not &quot;I&#39;m pointing at it a=
nd it is close to you&quot;. Similarly, when the speaker says &quot;lo brod=
a cu brode&quot;, the speaker is only claiming that it brodes, and it is us=
ing the description &quot;lo broda&quot; in order for the listener to know =
what &quot;it&quot; refers to, not to make any claims about it. Or would yo=
u also expand &quot;ti broda&quot; as &quot;It is close to you and I&#39;m =
pointing at it. It brodas.&quot;?</div><div><br></div><div>I would say that=
 whatever claim there is in &quot;lo broda&quot; has the same kind of illoc=
utionary force that a claim hidden in &quot;ta&quot;, &quot;mi&quot;, &quot=
;do&quot;, &quot;ko&#39;a&quot;, etc.</div><div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&=
#39;e xorxes</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--001a113458c44c12b305049b0a93--